Featherstone Make a Difference Forum

Featherstone Town => Town News => Topic started by: yetion1 on March 28, 2008, 09:44:08 pm



Title: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on March 28, 2008, 09:44:08 pm
well we are 2 plans in and £70k+ spent on the second. the plan is incorrect. below is what was stated at the last meeting;

Up date from urban renaissance meeting 7th September 2007

This was advertised as the final meeting to show the final plan of the proposed re-development of Featherstone. DTZ gave a presentation of the plans. This was followed by the public’s opinions and concerns being voiced.

The Plaza, sports campus and proposed housing estate.
A large number of residents whose homes and business’s would be demolished expressed concern. This area was described as a 15 year project. This worsened their situation as they were left with property they would not be able to sell. It was pointed out that the Chesneys area had enough space to create approximately 25 more parking spaces and some planted areas. The entrance to Chesneys was also pointed out. A great community centre with an ugly un adopted road in front of it that many people had tried to have surfaced. This should be included in the plans. It was asked would Post Office road be widened to accommodate the increase in traffic from the proposed housing estate at the top of the Rovers ground? There was no plan to do this. It was explained that Post office road would be made into a more friendly family area with speed bumps, traffic calming measures and staggered parking. It was also explained that Featherstone rovers and Wakefield sports and active life styles had agreed with the cricket, bowling and football clubs to create playing pitch’s at the end of post office road. This had all been discussed within the group known as “the hub”. Denise Jeffrey explained that she was to meet with the hub next week to continue talks. A representative from the cricket club explained that 3 years ago they had been approached by MP John Tricket to see if they wish to engage in talks under the hubs wings. Nothing further had come of it.
This whole area and the contradicting information given required a detailed reply as the plans had again not been discussed by any committee and had just appeared. I explained to Denise that at the meeting of the renaissance on June 25th Bob Foster from WMDC sports and recreation had given a detailed talk about meeting the Hub and the Rovers to create various sporting plans. After this talk the Rovers commented that the Hub had not actually met for over 18 months. This was probably said as I have tried to contact them myself for 2 years. With out adding anything it does not take a fool to see something is wrong and the truth of what is going on is being kept secret and added in at the last minute to steam roller someone’s plans through with out full consultation.
I pointed out that since the meeting in June 2 further meetings had taken place without discussing the minutes of the previous ones. This was as I see it where little things like a housing estate and sports fields suddenly appeared. To build a housing estate at the top of the Rovers ground would create a significant increase in traffic to post office road. If post office road was not to be widened then an alternative access should be found. CMS medical is a good example of the problem. They had to move their entire factory from post office road due to planning refusing permission to expand as they would create more traffic than was deemed acceptable. The proposed pitches at the end of post office road again have no access. The increase in traffic that would be caused would not be acceptable for the residential area. The only way that either the estate or pitch’s could be built would be if a new access road was created. There are 2 possibilities. Firstly a new road down to the Junction Pub or second a new road up and under the railway to Cressys Corner. This was dismissed as to costly. This is not so as the amount of housing proposed would produce enough profit to create the road. It is not the public’s fault that this has to be done and so they should not be further burdened with more congestion than they have.
The response to this reply was surprising. Denise left the room and requested councilor Binnersly into the car park. Upon her return Denise then had words with several other officials and came back to her seat. Denise then addressed the meeting. She explained that she agreed that there appeared to be issues with the Plaza, Sports Campus and post office road proposals. There was a need to finalize the whole plan as she wished to take the whole project forward to a Wakefield cabinet meeting this month for approval and begin to seek funds to begin. So that things could get moving Denise informed the meeting that she was going to remove the 3 issues and put forward Featherstone’s plan without them included. The area would be discussed in more detail and a decision then made. It was stated that there was no need to remove the people’s homes. This was accepted by those present with great relief.
I then pointed out to Denise that I had worked for 4 years with The Featherstone Sports Consortium to recognize the various sports groups in the area and what they required to continue and improve. This had been turned into a document. Also 4 major projects had been created that had been shown to Wakefield sports and recreation department. I had been given the run around and little help. The last contact had come from Lisa Dodd who informed me that they could not help and that I should place my ideas into the master plan for Featherstone. On the plans being shown there was none of our work and only that of a group that did not exist. The excuse given by DTZ was not sufficient. Call me cynical but at the last minute declaring that the area of the renaissance has been shrunk can only be an attempt to exclude individuals.

The precinct, Station lane
2 options were shown. The first to remove the left had side building and place a supermarket. The second was to remove the back row of shops and place a super market. Upon asking to speak I was informed the meeting was running out of time. My reply was that you had not allowed me to speak since the meeting in June and that my questions that had been written had not been answered. I stated that I thought we lived in a democracy and not a communist state. The manor in which the precinct plans were being issued left concerns. We keep hearing how a supermarket will only come if it has a visible frontage. All business understands this. In the precinct area this should not be at the cost of our shops. In principle option 2 would create more business by attracting more people in front of the shops going to the supermarket. This would be greatly reduced by losing shop units. I have all ready explained how this could be done. With very little disruption to the back row shops, they could be moved to either side. This would keep the number of shops and even flats and create a really attractive shopping area that would suit all. This would have to be drawn up and shown to the people concerned for their views and comment. Also a full package with proposal guidelines, that included moving and set up costs, compensation and consultation at each stage.

Station Lane
Trees keep appearing. Will someone listen to the fact that the water mains and sewers are in a bad state without roots growing in and on them.

Town hall
I don’t think there was a person in the room not grinning when DTZ showed its plan for a focal point incorporating the town hall corner by the traffic lights. Eventually they were informed that the building was to be sold and that the new focal point and entrance to Featherstone and station lane could be blocks of affordable flats. Denise agreed it was awful to sell the building and would work with the district and town council to try and keep the building. I passed over the history of the town hall clock. This had come to light in the last week as being the most important people owned asset we have.


Conclusion
Public opinion and group pressure has opened up peoples ears and corrected some mistakes. There is more on the list of things to change as you will see when the final plan is printed. The items shown are what have an issue around them. Any concerns should be sent to councilor Denise Jeffrey at Wakefield council. I would be happy to talk to any one such as the back row shops in the precinct. I will be following the final plan and talking with Denise who has suggested we meet. I will not be able to back any plan that the majority are not happy with.


you may ask what is wrong with the new plan? the new plan was silently revieled 2 weeks ago. everything they said they were not going to do they have done. if they think i am going to stand about and take that think again. WMDC will see what i am up to shortly ;)

you can see a copy of the plan at;

http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/search.htm?type=Or&Exclude=&resStart=0&resEnd=20&term=featherstone+masterplan



Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on April 11, 2008, 07:47:34 pm

Many of you will be aware of the recent plans to demolish buildings from the Yorkshire bank to post office road and back to graham and press. This was to be part of the new Featherstone master plan for Featherstone. At a final meeting held in chesneys at the end of 2007 WMDC explained the plan. The large number of complaints made by you on the night resulted in the plan being altered by taking off the demolition at the end of post office road. Denise Jeffery’s stated that she would see to this. A letter was sent from Denise to Kay Binnersly to confirm this had been done.
The whole plan then went to what is known as “cabinet” (a senior council meeting) to be passed as a plan to work to.
WE WERE ALL LIED TO. The plan that cabinet saw was the same one we disagreed with and was passed. It has taken time to get proof of this. Very silently the plan has been released onto the WMDC web site with none of the usual front page publicity and is there for all to see. The plan shows your area as a “civic plaza” and “improved access along post office road and improved parking”.
So what does this mean to you, you may ask. According to the plan the development is over the next 15-20 years. Unless some one does something the plan could and most probably will be executed.
My involvement was as part of the local chamber of trade. I have been involved with helping design this plan for the last year. The plan I saw towards the end of being written was becoming a pre-written plan that would not hear any ones input. My concerns are to improve station lane and not destroy it due to profit makers. I disagree with the plan.
Then comes politics’. I have been fighting this plan since its release along with the district councillors Kay, Roy and Pauline. Due to politics’ I am writing this letter to you personally and not as part of any group as there are many that would hold and use it against me.
My private statement is that it is now election time and the mud is flying. The facts are that Dick Taylor and Brendon Power (labour) both agree with the plan and the people who made it.
Labour say yes the independents say no. I need the independents help to stop this not some one working against me.
The fight for your homes will continue shortly. How much weight I can put behind it looks to be determined by politics’?
My copy of the plan is available to view at the DIY shop in the lane.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on April 21, 2008, 08:48:43 pm
tonight i have been to a meeting called "the Featherstone sports consortium". the master plan appears to have landed in this group and not with the original committee.

During the meeting today the master plan was brought up. This subject was raised at the last meeting where you gave me the first copy of the document. Since then I have studied the document and I questioned the plan as it was not the correct plan. I explained that Denise Jefferies had stated at the last public open meeting that the 2 items, the precinct and the end of post office road were to be removed due to public and committee disapproval. I have attached the letter from Denise to Kay after her request that states what the public and steering committee was told. I would be grateful if the person responsible for the mistake be found and what actions WMDC are going to take to rectify the problem. I am sure you understand the concern the residents and business's that will be demolished are feeling.
My personal view is that some one has told an untruth for the purpose of development. Development is often led by money and not people as many locals have seen the Girnhill estate.
I look forward to the reply as so do the residents concerned.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on May 23, 2008, 06:48:29 pm
my letter to the council;

hi Bob,

during the meeting today the master plan was brought up. this subject was raised at the last meeting where you gave me the first copy of the document. since then I have studied the document and I questioned the plan as it was not the correct plan. I explained that Denise Jefferies had stated at the last public open meeting that the 2 items, the precinct and the end of post office road were to be removed due to public and committee disapproval. I have attached the letter from Denise that states what the public and steering committee were told. I would be grateful if the person responsible for the mistake be found and what actions WMDC are going to take to rectify the problem. I am sure you understand the concern the residents and business's that will be demolished are feeling.

my personal view is that some one has told an untruth for the purpose of development. development is often led by money and not people as many locals have seen the Girnhill estate.

I look forward to the reply as so do the residents concerned.


and the reply

I have taken this up with the Major Projects team in Regeneration and they have responded by saying that they will ensure that the wording in the implementation  framework Re Chesney’s/ Plaza and Post Office Rd developments is appropriate, eg Date to be determined , subject to further public consultation. Hopefully this should be OK.

Regards,

Bob

Bob Foster

Sport and Recreation Manager

Sport and Active Lifestyles

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council






Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: Brian Potter on September 05, 2008, 02:09:52 pm
After watching the recent programme on the (non) development of Castleford, courtesy of WMDC, then I won't hold my breath on any grand ideas for the town. Every good idea on that programme was scuppered by the Authority. It could have been so much better but fountains and market stalls (to name just 2) were scrapped due to poor excuses such as "vandals might urinate in the fountain"  :o

However, it is interesting to note that many of these ideas are being reborn in Wakefield City Centre which seems to be undergoing a total rebuild from one end to the other. The Waterfront, new market, Marsh Way, old market area redevelopment, new roads, and the latest one is the bull ring, which will have, yes you guessed it, a fountain. >:(

There's a better class of vandal in Wakefield don't you know !


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: maff on September 05, 2008, 06:21:05 pm
After watching the recent programme on the (non) development of Castleford, courtesy of WMDC, then I won't hold my breath on any grand ideas for the town. Every good idea on that programme was scuppered by the Authority. It could have been so much better but fountains and market stalls (to name just 2) were scrapped due to poor excuses such as "vandals might urinate in the fountain"  :o

However, it is interesting to note that many of these ideas are being reborn in Wakefield City Centre which seems to be undergoing a total rebuild from one end to the other. The Waterfront, new market, Marsh Way, old market area redevelopment, new roads, and the latest one is the bull ring, which will have, yes you guessed it, a fountain. >:(

There's a better class of vandal in Wakefield don't you know !
Here is something that may explain our predicament. This is a quote from a certain person I will keep anonymous.
Quote
While ever the people of featherstone vote independant they will get nothing
You may think this is a childish pathetic thing to come out with but it is what you are all faced with. So like a child in a pram who has just had it sweets taken from it, the pathetic draconian attitude of narrow minded pillocks resides in high office.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: jaffa2 on September 05, 2008, 06:50:26 pm
just a short 1 here but thats is what has always happend and always will .the money that wmdc has to spend will always go to wakfeild first the 5 towns can forget it wmdc dont care about us .we are just the people that pay for wakeys new projects . if they want more money ,we pay it
there are far to many people that will always vote these people into power that are blind to where the money goes


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: jaffa2 on September 05, 2008, 07:02:26 pm
im not really a political motivated person .
i would just like our fair share .
hope your right if it gets featherstone back on the map and not wakey getting everything and others getting nothing


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: maff on September 05, 2008, 07:27:32 pm
im not really a political motivated person .
i would just like our fair share .
hope your right if it gets featherstone back on the map and not wakey getting everything and others getting nothing
You should see some of the deprevation that resides in this town. I ought to get a camera out and start taking pics for the record. Besides the shambolic mess of Girnhill lane, there are streets in so poor a condition I wouldn't drive a cart horse down them never mind a car. All the side streets in station lane for a start, the street next to Amigo's pizza shop looks like something from 1850's Victorian Britain. Theres holes in 'B' some roads that would bring a motorcyclist off his bike. Spend, spend, spend in wakefield. Rot, rot, rot in Fev. This town is in need of huge development and investment, are we gonna get it? Lets not kid ourselves, were being punished for voting Indy by a set of 'political has beens' who are heading out of office real soon.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on September 05, 2008, 07:59:49 pm
Wow, loads of really great and correct points put so well by you all. The passion shown shines and warms the heart. Don’t give up on our poor old town getting anywhere. As you say labour has crapped on us from above for years but they WILL be out soon. The position they have been in since the last election thanks to us lot getting of our asses and voting has created a situation,

1. labour needs the Indies to win votes in council. Not unless we get something ;)
 The Featherstone master plan is about to start. Council has met this week to start it off and we will be hearing shortly when meetings start. No labour top people.

2. labour has crapped on us for so long we are the crapest area going >:(
The state of the area is suddenly attracting all sorts of investment. Just from the groups that have contacted me in the last 2 months I dare to say that 2009 should see much more for Featherstone.

has the last 6 years of effort by many got somewhere. i hope we will see.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: maff on September 05, 2008, 08:54:56 pm
Pont has had millions spent on it, Cas has had millions spent on it, Normanton has had millions spent on it. They got their bypasses, so did Hemsworth, we couldn't have a bypass because Lord Oswald objected to it and Labour didn't have the balls to stand up to the aristocratic numpty. Fev according to you know who is lower than worm **** in the deepest ocean and has never had nothing spent on it even when Labour had the seats here. When this town gets the investment and development it deserves i'll show my arse in Woolworths window. I'm confident my arse will remain unseen for the next 20 years at least ;)
Get em out of power and we've got half a chance. While ever they are in office, we are down **** creek without a paddle.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on September 05, 2008, 08:57:12 pm
 ;D if the precinct got a face lift to start, could i have a picture of your ass? ;D


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: maff on September 05, 2008, 09:03:41 pm
;D if the precinct got a face lift to start, could i have a picture of your ass? ;D
I said development and investment in a true sense of the word. Perhaps block paving station lane, knock the precinct down and rebuild a new bigger one using part of the car park behind it. New roads to replace Station lane, service roads like they had built at Cas and Normy. Bring it into the 21st century. Not a couple of coats of paint and some new bits and bobs m8. I'm talking perhaps £10-15 millions worth of investment.
My arse is safe.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: RainbowWarrior on September 06, 2008, 11:04:08 pm

 Perhaps the programme reffered to by Brian Potter which reffered to Cas as a failing town will inspire the people of Featherstone  :). The people of Cas stood together and put pressure on those above. It took a long time, but in the end they got what they wanted, an improved Town. The programme about the parks and play areas certainly got me thinking. I hope this project has set a president!! How can they refuse action in other rundown areas??? Surely the community groups in Featherstone have areas of land on their patch belonging to WMDC or WDH that could be put to good use for the benefit of the community. Why should the Cas Masterplan take 5 years and Feath's 20 years? If as Yetion1 says things will start to move in 2009 we need to support those putting the pressure on to make sure it happens.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: Brian Potter on September 08, 2008, 10:23:23 am
But did Cas get what it wanted ? I don't think so. Each programme had an element of WMDC stopping ideas in their tracks. They got some of what they wanted, just enough to keep them quiet. Where have we heard that before ? In the bridge programme they offered one guy £2000 for his land which was worth 50 times that. Where have we heard that before ?

Even when Featherstone was under Labour control it got very little. We have always been the poor relations. The councillors at that time were very busy slapping each other on the back but achieved very little in real terms. When it came to a fight, none of them had the cahoonas to stand up and be counted. They were there for the perks and the easy life.

To say Featherstone won't get anything while it votes indy is very dangerous coming from a party with a majority of one.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: RainbowWarrior on September 09, 2008, 10:00:06 am

 Unfortunately I only just remember the politics of Featherstone pre 1974 as I was still at school and as with most young people it did not make much sense. I suppose it might just have seemed better with hindsight. I do't think Cas got all they wanted but at least it is a start and something to work on. If Feath got that kind of kick start it would be something. At least we would have something to build on and it might just get people working together instead of pulling the town apart.

I agree that a majority of one is a dangerous position to be in but perhaps that could work in Feath's favour over a period of time.
Things wo'nt change overnight but we do seem to be making some progress.

I am proud of our town and I am sure we have the determination to move forward.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: Ruthie on October 14, 2008, 03:57:24 pm
I know that this isnt directly linked to 'the master plan' but i couldnt think of anywhere else to put it, and i thought some of you may be interested however you may have seen/posted it before and i may just be going daft.  :-\

http://consult.wakefield.gov.uk/file/392838


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on October 14, 2008, 10:30:56 pm
As far as i can tell this is a combination of plan 1 and a little of plan 2. Plan 1 went in the bin. Plan 2 awaits its changes. The fields in front of Denis Sterlings alotments are not even in the 10 year plan yet. I stand corrected if i am wrong.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on October 15, 2008, 09:10:20 pm
You had better get ready. I have found out today that the government is encouraging this type of build. Take a close look. Square blocks 3 to 5 storey with inner garden and fence on the outside. Reminds me of prison blocks and Little London near Chapletown Leeds. Even I would be desperate to walk down a street there. Looks like the government policy is getting near to George Orwell’s prediction. Soon I predict we all will live in cubes to satisfy council housing targets.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on October 16, 2008, 07:26:21 pm
"Let’s work together" I have rammed down my throat again and again. What a load of balls. 3 years of working with all parties to plan regeneration and then a halt, or so we were told. It is becoming clearer and clearer there have been more back room meetings this year than ever using the information gained.

To the **** at WMDC who thought it would be funny to allow the demolition of the Kwiksave site next week (like closing the area to begin) without telling anyone and thus stopping the October Festival, good try. Last year closing the railway when we had a license to cross it for the October Festival was the start of seeing how low you could go.

 Yes, the Kwiksave looks like its coming down very soon. The propossed plans look like the area will get cleaned up almost fully. The almost bit is where talking could have worked wonders.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on December 04, 2008, 10:25:37 pm
Well, well, well, Tonight’s meeting chaired by Peter box. Not only that, Peter ran the meeting at the level of the Featherstone labour party. :(
Ive loads to write up, so for now, hi Peter glad your reading the “blogs”. Nothings changed has it apart from the battle line has been drawn :(? This could be discussed “around a table”. Suppose I will have to keep telling the truth, but louder. ;D
And to think a tiny forum was getting more readers than the Pontefract and Castleford politically controlled express. ::)


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: karen on December 05, 2008, 12:50:53 pm
nothing has changed then


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on December 06, 2008, 09:21:02 pm
Lots have changed. The cracks are starting to apear.

Minutes of meeting 4th December 2008 Featherstone Master Plan

Chair Peter Box accompanied by the regeneration team.

Featherstone update.

Peter explained that the final master plan document had been passed in council cabinet earlier this year and that the document was now being worked on by him and his regeneration team. Key goals are to regenerate the Girnhill estate and Station lane.
Peter then went in to detail that people should not listen to rumour or bloggs on the internet. People should look at the plans that are widely available for the master plan and the recent proposed developments now logged with WMDC planning services. After a 10 minute talk including introductions peter asked if any one had any questions. A reply was yes. A further reply by Peter was, we don’t won’t to be here until 8pm.

Q1. GY: Peter was informed that at the final public master plan meeting in November 2007 it had been agreed by all the members of the public present, steering group, council and Denise Jefferies to remove the item named as “the plaza” from the plan before it went to cabinet. Denise Jefferies stated to the people present at the meeting that she would do this and notify the district council to confirm.
R1. Peter informed the meeting that he had talked with Denise about this and that he felt the actions of the people present at that meeting were threatening towards Denise Jefferies. Denise had asked Peter to consider calling the police as some people were being threatening and were attempting to damage and kick her car.
R2. GY: Peter I think you are mistaken as no such incident occurred. I think you are confused with is a meeting in March chaired by Denise Jefferies for the residents of the Girnhill estate. At that meeting WMDC patrol officers arrived first and refused entry to anyone other than residents. The exclusion included council members and legal representatives. After complaints from residents council members and legal representatives were allowed in to the meeting as rightly they should. Other supporters numbering 7 stood outside the grounds of the building. These magnificent 7 were all elderly who believe in their friends plight so much that they stood in the cold for 2 hours in support. 4 of the 7 have walking sticks. All stood in silent protest. If a crime had been committed then there would be a crime number or log. As there is none then it must be considered misleading for the head of WMDC Peter Box to inform us with gossip and an untruth anyway. What you may also be confused with Peter is that at the November meeting Denise Jefferies was hassled by a member of the public whose name is available but is best described as “chuff chuff”. The people that stand wrongly accused now are the same people that escorted Denise to her car and away from the man. The folk of Featherstone will take a lot more cracking until we get to that stage.

Q2. GY: to confirm what is in the master plan can I confirm that the plaza has been removed. I have a letter dated January 2007 from Denise Jefferies that was copied to the district council that states that the plaza area has been removed from the final plan and will not go to WMDC cabinet as part of the final plan.
R1: Peter informed the meeting that “THE MASTER PLAN IS NOT WMDCs PLAN, IT WAS DTZs”. The whole master plan is the creation of DTZ and nothing to do with WMDC or him.
R2. GY: if the master plan is not from WMDC or anything to do with WMDC and is by DTZ why is the whole document that includes the “plaza” available on the WMDC website and in literature freely available and states WMDC as the people behind Featherstone’s master plan. Does this mean that its just Featherstone’s master plan that is being run by DTZ or all the 5 towns……..Peter interrupts ……..
R3. Peter interrupts and states that Denise Jefferies has had no power to remove any item from the master plan as the master plan is DTZs and not WMDCs…
R4. GY interrupts and states again then why do have a letter from Denise Jefferies that says different? Is it an untruth?
R4. Peter picks his head of the table after trying to ignore the question as his gesture of not listening to a point of none order. (Peter interrupted first. Freedom of speech?)
Peter replies that what ever is on view on the WMDC website is not their plan but DTZs. There are lots of things on our website. What you should not do is listen to rumours and gossip nor articles on websites. Without evidence I cannot comment. I will tell Denise you are calling her a liar. I also put forward that it should be looked in to providing “public health warnings “for any items on the WMDC website that are not ours so that the public can see what we are not involved with.
R5. Clive Tennant: the residents who live on the plaza have had leaflets through their doors promoting rumour and gossip.
R6. GY:  to Peter, so as head of WMDC you are telling us that the master plan is nothing to do with WMDC and that you do not believe that Denise Jefferies said she would remove the plaza item nor had the power to?
R7. Public 1: I was at that meeting and Denise Jefferies did say what GY said she did.
R8. Public 2: I was at that meeting and Denise Jefferies did say what GY said she did.
R9. Public 3: I was at that meeting and Denise Jefferies did say what GY said she did.
R10. Public 4: I was at that meeting and Denise Jefferies did say what GY said she did.
R11. Public 5: I was at that meeting and Denise Jefferies did say what GY said she did.
R12. Public 6: I was at that meeting and Denise Jefferies did say what GY said she did.

R13. Peter announces that on January 28th Mr.Stokes from WMDC will be holding a meeting at Chesneys for the Featherstone master plan. At this meeting the public will have a chance to input and alter the plan as part of the 1st stage of implementing the document.

Q3. Girnhill resident: could you tell me Peter why a plan has been published in the Pontefract and Castleford express labelled”exclusive to this newspaper” that shows a finished plan agreed with by you and yet states that consultation will take place before any plans are made.
Could you explain to me Peter why residents are being made to injure, power cuts from WEDEL condemned supplies, street lighting below the European requirement, drains bloked by WMDC workers with hard core and roads that are in dangerous condition. After many letter and emails of complaint no action has been taken.
R1. Peter replies that the Girnhill estate is not a part of this meeting; however I do understand the resident’s plight is great. The plans put forward will secure new housing and a start to the regeneration plan.
R2. Girnhill resident: what does WMDC intend to do with its CPO order?
R3. Peter replies that his legal team has worked hard to put in place the relevant documents to ensure the regeneration takes place.

 Comments
 The comment Q2. R13. is a bonza, as why was that not mentioned before trying to end the Featherstone part of the meeting?
  I think the best detail is the 1 fact that Peter Box the head of WMDC and local labour party missed out. Peter attended the meeting with a number of paid WMDC workers for reference information. Tell me I am wrong but are not details for WMDC showing that 2 people present at the meeting on the 4th December and sat next to Peter are responsible for the master plan and its finance with WMDC money. Surely Peter box would know this as chair. It would appear not so as I am sure he would not mislead a public meeting regards public money.
Again the word misleading springs to mind with the comments made regards the Girnhill estate. Peter forgot to tell the meeting another detail that there was to be a public meeting in the Chesneys centre to talk with the developer.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: Mr T on December 20, 2008, 07:47:47 pm
Just something I found! You've probably heard/seen it already!

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2008-06-17b.227.0


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on December 27, 2008, 07:48:41 pm


Mr Peter Box
Leader of Wakefield District Council
Chairman of the Master Plan committee
Wakefield Town Hall
Wood Street
Wakefield
West Yorkshire

29/12/2008

Re: The Featherstone Master Plan part 2

At this meeting you stated that any points that required answers should be written down and handed in at the end of the meeting.
 As a member of the Featherstone master plan steering committee and having worked on the master plan for 4 years I have a number of concerns that appear to be ignored. I left a number of documents that still have outstanding answers regards the “master plan” from the last 18 months and agreed that questions raised from this meeting requiring answers would be written down.

Questions regard the Minutes of meeting 4th December 2008 Featherstone Master Plan

You explained that the final master plan document had been passed in council cabinet earlier this year and that the document was now being worked on by him and his regeneration team. Key goals are to regenerate the Girnhill estate and Station lane.
After a 10 minute talk including introductions you asked if any one had any questions. A reply was yes. Your reply was “we don’t won’t to be here until 8pm.” Perhaps more time and meetings should be allocated to Featherstone’s re-development.

Question 1: at the steering committee meeting of June 25th 2007 at Newton Bar the proposal for a better access for Featherstone rovers and a better community space by removing the buildings in front of Chesneys under the name of “Plaza” was put forward and agreed upon not to be put forward by a majority decision. At the following meeting on the 13th August 2007 the item remained on the agenda. Why had it not been removed if it was agreed to remove it?

Question 2:  the 13th august meeting was the final steering group meeting to finalize with DTZ the Featherstone master plan. It was the most unusual meeting I have ever been to in the way it was conducted.
The meeting opened and it was explained to us that 2 key people were missing and would arrive late. We were asked if it was ok and go straight to the presentation of D.T.Z. latest plan. We would return to the minutes as soon as the 2 people arrived. I then expressed that I had a number of issues with the minutes and passed D.T.Z. a copy of my concerns in writing. It was explained to me that they would come back to them as soon as the 2 people arrived. We agreed and D.T.Z. continued showing the final design. The Plaza area or post office road corner was then shown. This had changed with some buildings back again except the chip shop, corner flats and terrace houses behind but still not what had been agreed. I expressed my concern that the plan was still not as agreed. The 2 missing people turned up in the meeting. I requested to go back to going through the minutes. It was insisted that the meeting continue and the minutes be read at the end. I stated that the minutes were important to the discussion. It was explained that the D.T.Z. presentation was almost over and they should finish first. We agreed.
D.T.Z. finished and the meeting was brought to a close. I expressed that we still had not discussed the minutes. The chairman offered that the meeting close and I go through the minutes with a member of D.T.Z. I explained that the concerns I had with the minutes were for discussion with the group for the good of the project. It was then explained that 1 of the people we had waited for and the most important had to go. I was left with no choice but to agree as it was the only way I could supposedly officially lodge concerns that at some point will need to be answered. I gave details of my concerns and a copy of my notes. How can it possible that such an important meeting was allowed to be conducted in such an un-democratic way without any recall or investigation?

Question 3: At the final public and committee meeting of the second Featherstone master plan held on 7th September 2007 an alteration was publicly announced after overwhelming disproval.  It was agreed by all the members of the public present, steering group, district council and Denise Jefferies to remove the item named as “the plaza” from the plan before it went to cabinet. Denise Jefferies stated to the people present at the meeting that she would do this and notify the district council to confirm in writing it had been removed before going to cabinet. Written confirmation was received from Denise in January 2008 prior to the cabinet meeting that the “Plaza” had been removed. The final published plan by WMDC shows the “Plaza” still on the plans as a passed by WMDC cabinet item.
A: Why was the “Plaza” not removed from the plan?
B: Is it an offence for someone to put forward to WMDC cabinet a plan different to that confirmed by officials and public?
C: The final published plan is provably different from that agreed. Will DTZ be responsible for any alteration costs or the tax payers out of council monies?
D: The facts would suggest that some form of investigation takes place as public money may have been miss-used and procedure ignored. Should an investigation be held?

Question 4: At the Featherstone regeneration public meeting held 4th December 2008 you commented in to detail that people should not listen to rumour or bloggs on the internet. People should look at the plans that are widely available for the master plan and the recent proposed developments now logged with WMDC planning services and available on their website. I replied “can I confirm that the plaza has been removed. I have a letter dated January 2007 from Denise Jefferies that was copied to the district council that states that the plaza area has been removed from the final plan and did not go to WMDC cabinet as part of the final plan. The final master plan as shown on the WMDC website shows the “Plaza” still on”
 You then stated that the “Master Plan“available to view on the WMDC website was just a plan created by a company called D.T.Z. and was nothing to do with WMDC. You then commented and conferred with your colleagues that perhaps WMDC should provide public heath warnings for its internet pages stating they are nothing to do with them.
A: can you confirm the fact stated by you to the public that the master plan is nothing to do with WMDC?
B: can you confirm the fact stated by you to the public that the master plan for Featherstone is only a document produced by a company called D.T.Z. with no public money involved in its production?
C: according to documents within the public realm is it not correct that members of your panel present at the meeting are responsible for using public money to employ the services of D.T.Z. to produce the master plan on behalf of WMDC and the tax payers?

I and many others would appreciate your reply to the questions here written to which you publicly agreed to answer.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on January 07, 2009, 09:14:08 pm
Any comments?
Development Services
Major Projects
Room D5
Newton Bar
Leeds Road
Wakefield
WF1 1XS

Interim Service Director: Ann Pittard

7th January 2009

Dear  Mr
I am writing in response to the concerns which you raised at the Towns Team meeting on 4th December 2008 regarding the Featherstone Masterplan.

The notes of the town team meeting which took place on the 7th September 2007 record that :
•   Duncan Melville of DTZ presented their master plan proposals for Featherstone. They included the recommendation that Featherstone needs a number of “destinations” to increase its attraction and suggested the creation of a Civic plaza in the vicinity of Chesney’s in order to transform Featherstone. The proposals also included the potential for the development of housing in the vicinity of Featherstone Rovers.
•   Concerns were raised at the meeting about the possible demolition of properties in the vicinity of Chesney’s to facilitate the development of new housing close to the Rovers ground and to  create a “Civic Plaza”
•   The meeting was informed that the Civic Plaza proposal was seen a longer term proposal which, if implemented, would be likely to occur towards the end of the masterplan period, and that wide scale demolition was not envisaged though it may be necessary to investigate selective demolition in order to bring forward plans to improve the town centre.   
•   Cllr Jeffery who chaired the meeting recommended that there be further discussion as to how this specific proposal should be taken forward, but accepted that elements of the masterplan needed to be agreed by Cabinet as  this has implications for the  funding of the Girnhill Lane housing area.

At the meeting it was agreed that:

1.   The draft Masterplan for Featherstone Central Area apart from the proposed Civic Plaza area be agreed and recommended for approval to Wakefield Council’s Cabinet
2.   Further consideration be given to the proposed Civic Plaza area

Following the meeting there were conversations about how this should be taken forward. Since the masterplan was DTZ’s document and contained the consultant’s recommendations to the council, the study was reported with all the recommendations discussed at the 7th September meeting.

It is my understanding that at a meeting on 11th September that this item was discussed and that it was agreed that the original report would go to Cabinet, but that the recommendations would be approved except for the issue relating to Chesney’s and the creation of a Plaza.

The Featherstone masterplan was reported at the Cabinet meeting on 18th September 2007 as a guide for future development in Featherstone Town Centre in order that the principles encompassed in the Master Plan would act as a basis for the development of an implementation framework for Featherstone including the further development of specific project proposals contained in the plan. It was also decided that further consultation would be undertaken on the detail of individual proposals as these are worked up.

The Cabinet meeting resolved that:
•   the Featherstone Central Area Master Plan be approved as a vision for the regeneration of the town for the next twenty years, and as a starting point for further detailed work leading to the development of definitive proposals and implementation arrangements for the redevelopment of parts of the central area and the wider regeneration of the town.
•   That further reports on the details of the proposals, implementation plans and partnership arrangements required be taken to Cabinet for approval as necessary.

It was evident at the December meeting that the wording on the web site was insufficiently clear, and this was amended as a matter of urgency following the meeting.  I think it is also important to note that the masterplan has no statutory status, and while it will be used as a basis to guide the development of the area over the next 20 years, it will not be incorporated into the Council’s Local Development Framework.

As you will be aware from the Towns Team meeting of 4th December, Featherstone has been designated as a pilot Coalfield Action area, and as such a steering group has been established to guide the work to be undertaken and to determine the priorities for action.

The proposals for the creation of a Plaza are therefore unlikely to be progressed as a priority in view of all the other projects which require implementation. 

I trust that this responds to the queries raised at the meeting

Yours sincerely

Maggie Thompson



Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on January 15, 2009, 09:38:21 pm
Development Services
Major Projects
Room D5
Newton Bar
Leeds Road
Wakefield
WF1 1XS

Interim Service Director: Ann Pittard

15th January 2009
Dear Maggie Thompson

I have provided my reply high lighted in blue,

Dear  Mr Yates,
I am writing in response to the concerns which you raised at the Towns Team meeting on 4th December 2008 regarding the Featherstone Masterplan.

The notes of the town team meeting which took place on the 7th September 2007 record that :
•   Duncan Melville of DTZ presented their master plan proposals for Featherstone. They included the recommendation that Featherstone needs a number of “destinations” to increase its attraction and suggested the creation of a Civic plaza in the vicinity of Chesney’s in order to transform Featherstone. The proposals also included the potential for the development of housing in the vicinity of Featherstone Rovers.
•   Yet again it appears the notes are not what actually happened but are a pre-recorded set of events. Duncan Melville of DTZ did give the talk only after first explaining that key people were missing and that the minutes of the previous meeting are heard later so that he could begin. Apart from the Plaza everything else explained was correct by DTZ.

•   Concerns were raised at the meeting about the possible demolition of properties in the vicinity of Chesney’s to facilitate the development of new housing close to the Rovers ground and to  create a “Civic Plaza”
•   Mr Melville informed the meeting that any questions should be raised at the end of the meeting to allow him to talk. A representative would stay back to answer questions. No questions were allowed to be taken.•   

The meeting was informed that the Civic Plaza proposal was seen a longer term proposal which, if implemented, would be likely to occur towards the end of the masterplan period, and that wide scale demolition was not envisaged though it may be necessary to investigate selective demolition in order to bring forward plans to improve the town centre.
•   Again, Mr Melville informed the meeting that any questions should be raised at the end of the meeting to allow him to talk. A representative would stay back to answer questions. No questions were allowed to be taken.

•   Cllr Jeffery who chaired the meeting recommended that there be further discussion as to how this specific proposal should be taken forward, but accepted that elements of the masterplan needed to be agreed by Cabinet as  this has implications for the  funding of the Girnhill Lane housing area.
Cllr Jeffery who “chaired the meeting” was one of the officials missing from the meeting who did not turn up until 2 thirds of the way through the presentation. Cllr Jeffery at the end of the presentation explained how we should all agree with it and move on to process it. I pointed out that I did have comments and concerns and had been asked to only mention them at the end of the meeting without a group discussion. Cllr Jeffery agreed with Mr Melville that I should raise my points alone at the end. The Girnhill lane had also been removed from March 2007 with in the master plan.

At the meeting it was agreed that:

1.   The draft Masterplan for Featherstone Central Area apart from the proposed Civic Plaza area be agreed and recommended for approval to Wakefield Council’s Cabinet
No agreement was made but you statement is the opinion of the committee and public. This point contradicts the minutes as they are supposedly written

2.   Further consideration be given to the proposed Civic Plaza area
No mention at the meeting was given to this nor when consultation would occur. Without consultation it would be correct to surmise that public money would be wasted.
Following the meeting there were conversations about how this should be taken forward. Since the masterplan was DTZ’s document and contained the consultant’s recommendations to the council, the study was reported with all the recommendations discussed at the 7th September meeting.
Could you confirm that DTZ were under the employment of WMDC to create a master plan, or were working on their own to provide a plan that WMDC may or may not adopt and put forward to cabinet so that public money would be spent on it.
It is my understanding that at a meeting on 11th September that this item was discussed and that it was agreed that the original report would go to Cabinet, but that the recommendations would be approved except for the issue relating to Chesney’s and the creation of a Plaza.
This statement is correct, so why wasn’t it carried out? Am I to understand as a fact that the cabinet report that passed the plaza area in contradiction to the minutes and written complaints is not the one available under the freedom of information act, but in fact another document passed that no one has viewed as yet?

The Featherstone masterplan was reported at the Cabinet meeting on 18th September 2007 as a guide for future development in Featherstone Town Centre in order that the principles encompassed in the Master Plan would act as a basis for the development of an implementation framework for Featherstone including the further development of specific project proposals contained in the plan. It was also decided that further consultation would be undertaken on the detail of individual proposals as these are worked up.
Consultation was agreed but the facts available again state that the document is complete without further consultation.

The Cabinet meeting resolved that:
•   the Featherstone Central Area Master Plan be approved as a vision for the regeneration of the town for the next twenty years, and as a starting point for further detailed work leading to the development of definitive proposals and implementation arrangements for the redevelopment of parts of the central area and the wider regeneration of the town.
•   Could you confirm that WMDC at this point have paid for a document created by DTZ that they intend to work from?  

•   That further reports on the details of the proposals, implementation plans and partnership arrangements required be taken to Cabinet for approval as necessary.
•   If cabinet have been fully aware of the inconsistencies surrounding the DTZ created master plan how can they pass any further monies to a proven incorrect document?

It was evident at the December meeting that the wording on the web site was insufficiently clear, and this was amended as a matter of urgency following the meeting.  I think it is also important to note that the masterplan has no statutory status, and while it will be used as a basis to guide the development of the area over the next 20 years, it will not be incorporated into the Council’s Local Development Framework.

As you will be aware from the Towns Team meeting of 4th December, Featherstone has been designated as a pilot Coalfield Action area, and as such a steering group has been established to guide the work to be undertaken and to determine the priorities for action.
After over a year of complaints of a wrong document passed by WMDC should a steering group be dropped in to the pit of disastrous procedure all ready documented?

The proposals for the creation of a Plaza are therefore unlikely to be progressed as a priority in view of all the other projects which require implementation.
Again a contradiction of terms and the minutes provided. Is the Plaza on or off is a fair question? Cllr Jeffery stated publicly it was off. The best reply so far is “unlikely”. That is not the correct answer according to the facts.

I trust that this responds to the queries raised at the meeting

As you will see from my reply this does not respond to my queries raised at neither the last meeting nor any of the others I have attended recently. Cllr Box publicly stated at the last meeting that questions would be answered. Your reply comments that you were un-sure who was to reply, you or Cllr Box. As the head of WMDC and chair of the regeneration committee Cllr Box should be made aware of the problems and be asked to respond. As the local government ombudsman is now following developments surely particular attention should be raised to the wasting of any more public money.

Yours sincerely


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: mick200 on January 16, 2009, 09:02:51 pm
Quote
Nothings changed has it apart from the battle line has been drawn
I've tried to figure out the problem you have with the world Yetion1 but still I am at a loss. I admire your determination to get what you want but still cannot figure out what you actually do want. There is no doubt that you have a deep hatred of the Labour movement for reasons only known to yourself but if you didn't have such an hatred for Labour I strongly believe that your hatred would be aimed at someone else.
The town is suffering without doubt because of the differences between the Independents and Labour. It reminds me in many ways of the wars of the roses between the House of York and the House of Lancaster with the 'Kingmaker' or the Earl of Warwick as he was known in between the two factions. The 'Kingmaker' as he was known was proven to have been involved in the conflict for his own selfish reasons and in this particular instance I believe there is no difference from the prospective of your own involvement.
In the end both sides turned on the 'Kingmaker' and he was hanged for treason. It is a matter of time before both sides see the truth, I'm willing to bet large amounts of cash on it and today I heard for the first time, displeasure of your activities from both sides of the devide. It's a countdown from here on in. ;)




Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on January 16, 2009, 10:13:01 pm
Quote
Nothings changed has it apart from the battle line has been drawn
I've tried to figure out the problem you have with the world Yetion1 but still I am at a loss. I admire your determination to get what you want but still cannot figure out what you actually do want.
Some people/ parties just cannot get used to the idea that there is a wealth of people in Featherstone prepared to work hard for free at a personal cost for one reason, “ a better Featherstone”.

 There is no doubt that you have a deep hatred of the Labour movement for reasons only known to yourself but if you didn't have such an hatred for Labour I strongly believe that your hatred would be aimed at someone else.
You may find it hard to believe, but in my time I have met certain labour party members who I consider very nice people. You appear to have hatred for me, yet what I have I stated that is incorrect? Your observation is obviously just that your opinion.


The town is suffering without doubt because of the differences between the Independents and Labour.
Is it really or is the rot being treated?



It reminds me in many ways of the wars of the roses between the House of York and the House of Lancaster with the 'Kingmaker' or the Earl of Warwick as he was known in between the two factions. The 'Kingmaker' as he was known was proven to have been involved in the conflict for his own selfish reasons and in this particular instance I believe there is no difference from the prospective of your own involvement.
In the end both sides turned on the 'Kingmaker' and he was hanged for treason. It is a matter of time before both sides see the truth, I'm willing to bet large amounts of cash on it and today I heard for the first time, displeasure of your activities from both sides of the devide. It's a countdown from here on in. ;)
A made up scenario, composed out of your imagination and with out facts yet again Mick. Black will never be white what ever we are told from the people we are supposed to trust. Is that not a good enough cause to fight?  ;D




Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on February 27, 2009, 09:55:43 pm
A countdown it was Mick (Clive) before justice caught up. Yet again Mick you forgot to mention the facts. Today is a significant day for a number of home owners and business’s in Featherstone. Today was the dead line for Peter Box to reply to me and the Government Ombudsman regards a number of irregularities. I am positive the press will have a field day reporting this. In the mean time Featherstone has now become represented by the full force of central government to investigate ALL of its allegations.
And all it should have taken was to sit down and talk. The following documents should put me 1 point above Roy on the “Labour party Destroy the buggars” list. 8) :o ::)

(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/2209MASPLANREPLY2edit.jpg)

(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/2209MASPLANREPLY3edit.jpg)

(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/2209MASPLANREPLY4edit.jpg)


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on March 19, 2009, 08:43:36 pm
Terms of Reference

 This could get very informative. The title “terms of reference” is an item that many of the community groups come across but I am sure have never put in front of a political legal beagle to gain their true meaning.
In plain English when you begin meetings about a subject as a community group that involves others like WMDC or for example a funding body the meeting rules are handed out at the first meeting. This does not all ways happen as many people do not have a clue they should have them. When the rule sheet is given out one of the items is called “terms of reference”. What this legal point states are the powers of the group and what will be listened to from them.
I hope that this topic may be picked up on by certain members who know how to look so their views of what this all means can be written before I give my opinion.
1st suggestion would be to look at the Featherstone Masterplan steering group’s minutes for 9th November 2006 and look at document 3.9.
2nd suggestion would be to look at ALL the minutes of the Featherstone Masterplan steering group for 13th August 2007.
 ;) ;D


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: fev angel on March 19, 2009, 09:06:38 pm
Does anyone know when and where the next master plan meeting will be and where we can get a copy of the master plan from


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on March 25, 2009, 10:26:36 pm
Just for now take a look at the latest sign to anonymously appear in Featherstone. Due to the efforts of Featherstone labour party works have stopped that to restart will cost inocent people. Regeneration in Featherstone? Not if it hasn’t got a red rosette.
War! You got one.

(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/Picture053.jpg)


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: fev angel on March 26, 2009, 08:11:28 am
When did this happen why would labour put that up about them self’s   did Kay tell you I saw someone taking photo of you when you working on farm gate


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: fev angel on March 26, 2009, 11:48:16 pm
My personal feelings are that the board put up has to be taken down because iam sure I read some where that there were boards put up on the lister baths site and there were letters sent saying they should be took down well I think that should be as well on the bus going to Castleford a old lady sat near me and read the board her words was why does it say that when Kay is in the paper saying good things about Featherstone regen her last words to me were why has who ever done this made a lovely lady look silly


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: Forkhandles on March 28, 2009, 02:17:04 pm
Alledgedly, the work was stopped for failing to adhere to health and safety guidlines.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on March 29, 2009, 08:41:42 pm
3 years ago and only for 3 years WMDC launched a shop front grant improvement scheme. The grant offers 50% of the total cost of refurbishment. A great offer but still out of the reach of many businesses in Featherstone as they have not got even the 50%.
The Featherstone chamber of trade met with WMDC to discuss promoting the grant and to talk about any ideas. The first comment from the WMDC regeneration team was if there had been any interest from any businesses in the precinct? There had been very little as the repairs needed went beyond just shop fronts. It was agreed to contact all the businesses and inform them of the grant. This was done by holding a meeting with all concerned. The results were that the business’s wished to apply but the nature of the works needed went beyond just paint on a shop the front. The canopies and roofs are in major disrepair. Some shop owners had requested permission to fully remove them only to be told they must stay or battle away in court. Any cost spent on repairs was feared to be a waste of money as the roofs were walked on and vandalized daily due to the nature of the entire sites original bad design/ present day youths attitude to property.
 The results of this first meeting revealed a different approach was needed. Further talks were held with WMDC and the chamber of trade where it was decided that a plan should be created around the issues raised. WMDC offered that if all the people concerned could be brought together as 1 project then funding would be made available for restoration of the council owned area and for works on the canopies. Over the next 4 months a plan was created that addressed the problems front, top and back. This was put forward to the businesses who agreed to a selection of ideas and that they would all work together as one. It was also agreed that the chamber of trade would continue to work for FREE on their behalf to pull a project together.
Unfortunately then due to the closure of the Kwiksave and a company called DTZ (the master plan writers) for the next 10 months the possibility of the business being bought up by a supermarket hung over the precinct. The situation ended with the Kwiksave site being sold to a developer who did not wish to try and buy up as part of their plans.
Back on track a final plan was worked up by the chamber of trade. This was agreed by all involved apart from the costs. Even with a 50% grant the proposed costs were beyond some business reach. A further 4 months was spent seeking quotes and the possibility of FREE labour. A difficult task on its own made even more difficult as the brief was to use local resources where possible.
A final project was submitted summer 2008 that included

1.   8 business and 4 flats working together
2.   both canopies refurbished
3.   flat roofs converted to sloping
4.   sofits and fascia replacement
5.   8 shop fronts and 4 flats re-decorated and 1 re-opened and restored that is now shut including a community notice board
6.   ornate security rails to prevent roof trespass
7.   ornate hand rails
8.   various fenced bin storage
9.   graffiti removed and stained walls cleaned
10.   rear dusk to dawn lighting, Bt cables and YEDL cables made not an eye sore
11.   100% of work carried out by Featherstone trades men, 28% of materials found with in Featherstone
12.   a risk assessment and work plan for every stage of repairs although not requested
13.   some FREE voluntary labour
14.   WMDC to replace broken flag stones, corner stones and repair surfaces


You would have thought it would be plain sailing from there on. Up until December 2008 various documents repeatedly went a stray a number of times until the application was finally passed and the go ahead given that all was in place, complete and that works could start. A formal and official letter was received.
As the works involved various trades men and materials that would need to be ordered or booked a start date was given for the beginning of March 2009.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on March 29, 2009, 08:43:11 pm
There was a reason for not immediately writing the Full set of facts leading to this outrageous situation. The reason was to see what certain individuals/ politicians would make up/ trip up on, in the short time. Looks like it worked as the results now back the facts.
From day one 3 years ago because of the polatics of Featherstone the precinct project had to be 101% accountable. This was achieved in its planning. A good example of this is the actual cost of the project. Some at WMDC are impressed with the costs saved and the way the project has been put together and cannot understand why the chamber of trade has not asked for any costs in the grant to cover project management. The chamber would get paid if asked but choose to work for FREE for a number of reasons including reducing costs and the fact it would be shoved in their face if they did. Its called pride in your town un-like other towns that just take the money silently with no complaints.
After getting through the “loosing documents” stage that I personally see more and more often the project began 4 weeks ago with an official “all is complete” go a head received.

3 years ago it was all ready worked out that the labour party would try to stop the works with health and safety. During the creation of the project considerations were given to health and safety as the area is thought to be public. In actual fact the area being renovated is private. Further more no trace could be found of payment of the over lapped lease on the WMDC precinct area. As public safety has to be first a risk assessment and plan of works were created as if the site was public.

WEEK -1: before the project starts Health and safety discuss the plan and the assessments provided. Because of the land ownership, the number of people on site and the number of people working for free the project actually required none of the documents created only that all workers have discussed the issues. However it is agreed that the created plans of safety would be adhered too.

WEEK1: out of about 16,000.00 residents in Featherstone who probably would all agree with the project 3 turned out to look at the works armed with a camera. Guess what party they vote for and who got the pictures sent to them? Labour WMDC of course. Various written and telephoned complaints were also made by people leaving their details. I will let you guess who they vote for.

WEEK2: health and safety contact the site after the reports. Work stops and an explanation of procedures is given. ALL is correct beyond what was required.
Whilst working on the Thursday morning a number of ladies stopped to stere at the workers on site (we are not that sexy are we?) On the Friday morning a lady was walking down the lane. When she got passed the Farmgate and in view of the works she appeared to be mesmerized by the works (or workmen?) and looked left glaring. The workers on site, the property owner and 3 café customers then witnessed the most amazing site. Due to not looking forward the lady then walked in to the lamp post by the bus stop. It must have all most knocked her out as she fell to the ground. It was reported to the police so that there could be no repercussions.

WEEK3: bloody hell work got on and no complaints. Just the odd labour party tourist with a camera that are never normally there.

WEEK4:
Monday: left alone loads get done. Workers are enjoying the spirit of progress when a job hums.
Tuesday: left alone loads get done. Workers are enjoying the spirit of progress when a job hums.
Tuesday evening receive an email from WMDC. Your paperwork is incomplete and as it stands no contractor or other will be paid any part of the grant. The grant had to be complete in 2008 as it was passed by a WMDC committee for approval including a covering letter sent out to START all is complete. Infuriated is not the word. Upon contacting WMDC on Wednesday morning it appeared that 3 pieces of paper had gone missing from the application. Also the person who had been running the project at WMDC was leaving on Tuesday. Just to cap it all WMDC had received further complaints from only labour party people in Featherstone that included that I personally was “pocketing all the money”. THAT WAS THE FINAL STRAW for 2 reasons
1.   I am being called a cheat
2.   The chamber of trade cannot confirm to contractors that they would be paid.

Because of this there was no other choice but to ask all concerned to come off site and stop production elsewhere. WMDC were made aware of this on Wednesday morning. Apparently Andy Wallhead the head of regeneration was on his way out to Featherstone to personally sort out the problems. Still waiting?
So as it stands until WMDC can confirm that all is correct with paperwork and that all persons involved will be paid out subject to contract no one in their right mind would do any more work. Would you? You would have thought that some one would have considered it important enough to get here.
There also still remains the problem of complaints. The Featherstone labour party all ready have egg on their face as they are claiming on the internet that the project was stopped due to health and safety issues. The fact is that when the real problem is sorted it would not be correct to not listen to complaints. As the complaints stand the area is requested to be boarded off and closed. This would include reducing or stopping the market for up to 6 months not to mention closing the businesses. The chamber of trade has no option but to look at the complaints in the interest of public safety. Any extra costs involved I am sure WMDC will not be putting up so who will pay. Perhaps we should send a bill to the labour party head office, No bloody10 Downing Street.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: belle on March 29, 2009, 09:17:14 pm
Not one for bickering myself ...and i am certainly fed up of the bickering !...i can actually vouch for Yetion1 when referring to the false allegations made about him whilst working in the Precinct . :)

Do we know when the work in Station Lane is going to continue ???


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on March 29, 2009, 10:02:48 pm
Not one for bickering myself ...and i am certainly fed up of the bickering !...i can actually vouch for Yetion1 when referring to the false allegations made about him whilst working in the Precinct . :)

Do we know when the work in Station Lane is going to continue ???

I thank you for making the effort to give a very positive comment.

Let’s work together, YES PLEASE?
 I keep bloody trying and hope you can understand the frustration.

The buggar of it is that the local trades men involved are/ were up for it. You cannot buy that. It’s down to WMDC for now followed by the chamber of trade having to look at all the complaints and assessing them if and when WMDC pass them on in full.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: Little Miss Sunshine on March 29, 2009, 11:10:55 pm
You got me stumped for a minute there little miss sunshine with your last 2 posts, then it dawned on me the way the words are written.  I could be right in thinking that what is being said is copied over from the communist labour forum where I am excluded (“message go away you are not welcome”, is given).
I thank you for making me aware of this tripe that has plenty of zero back up. I do like the bit about Brendan being a lib dem. Didn’t he get kicked out for being independent and giving out labour leaflets at their last election. Lies! It just gets easier to prove labours. ::)

work together? would be nice ;)

Don't thank me, I'm just fed up will all the political rubbish you keep coming out with!


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: belle on March 30, 2009, 12:50:44 pm
I never saw any "rumble or concrete" on the pavement where they were working ...why would there be concrete on the pavement? ...they are renovating the canopy not digging up the pavement! ;D

Perhaps the workers moved the lamppost  :P


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: Forkhandles on March 30, 2009, 01:47:48 pm
Credit where its due, the site was cordoned of properly with tape, and as belle says, there was no concrete or rubble lying about, as there was no rubble or concrete involved in the job, only steel and wood.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: John on March 30, 2009, 08:22:28 pm
 was having a drink Sunday with a driver from ross.the sign came up as he swaps drivers in the lane. he was sat on the bench about 8foot away and saw the lady walk in to the post. he got up to help but the lady got up quickly and rushed off. dont know about any rubble i will ask.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: fev angel on March 30, 2009, 08:55:49 pm
thanks she is ok now tho which is good


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: John on April 19, 2009, 07:37:12 pm
sorry, been away, just got back to pub ;D
the lady walked in front of him and just walked in to the post because she was not looking forward. there was definately no concrete or other to trip over. the lads working went over to him and explained what had been happening. the 2 police men walked by and heard the conversation.


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on April 24, 2009, 07:13:09 pm
Angela Murphy
WMDC planning support assistant
Newton Bar
Leeds Road
Wakefield
WF1 2TX

Ref: 09/00326/ful

24.04.2009

Dear Angela

INVALID APPLICATION

Proposal: restoration of shops
Location: The Precinct Station Lane Featherstone

I have today received your letter dated 3rd April 2009. You comment that you have received no correspondence from your letter dated 20 February 2009 and because of this you are returning my still incomplete application. Also you note that to resubmit the application it will have to alter to meet the new regulations that come in to force today the 6th April accompanied with another payment of £170.00.
I am sure you are not aware of the circumstances surrounding neither this project nor the episodes on site over the last 6 weeks. To give you some idea 2 weeks ago the workers walked off site due to malicious complaints, lost paper work and sudden withdrawal of all ready approved WMDC funds towards part of the costs. After the local district council and chairman of the chamber of trade agreed to meet today with Cllr peter Box and confirm all is correct and calm the local political storm work re-started today. Surely nothing could go wrong? The post man changed that with your letter.
Since receipt of your first letter you were notified that I was working with a member of the planning department called Hubert. In that time all most every week alterations or new plans have been requested. As was expected these some times went missing by post resulting in all correspondence being delivered by hand from Featherstone to Wakefield. Hubert was on leave last week but prior to his leaving the application was at a stage that was considered fit for approval and not invalid.
After talking to Hubert today he is perplexed as to why the file has been taken and why my application has been altered from recommend approval to invalid. Fortunately thanks to Hubert the application will be now correctly passed via the correct channels when I again have hand delivered it to Wakefield.
My concerns are who took my application and altered the status? Are you responsible as the information is provided by you on behalf of WMDC? Was this correct to perform? Will my application be handled correctly in the future process?

Regards


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on April 30, 2009, 10:25:14 pm

Jon Tricket MP
1A Highfield Road
Hemsworth
Pontefract
West Yorkshire
WF9 4DP

30th April 2009

Ref: Featherstone renaissance steering group

Dear Mr Tricket

I was delighted to read your article in the Pontefract and Castleford express today as it confirmed a number of my concerns presently under investigation by the local government ombudsman’s office that when rectified will hopefully put Featherstone on the upward track it deserves.

I and the ombudsman would appreciate a reply to the following;

1. Can you please clarify if the article on page 12 of the Pontefract and Castleford express is a news story or a labour party political press release?

2. The proposals passed by WMDC cabinet under the name “masterplan” were factually not those agreed by the public, the committee or Cllr Denise Jeffery. WMDC cabinet appear to have been misled that has led to a plan being passed that will eventually be used to access public money. Cllr Peter Box in reply to the local government ombudsman has stated that Cllr Denise Jeffery has absolutely “no power” to alter or amend plans or make decisions under the terms of reference supposedly written within the process of the Featherstone masterplan. As you have publicly commented that you have conferred with Denise Jeffery to ask for a member to be allowed on the renaissance committee could you please provide copies of the correspondence so that it can be evaluated within the present investigation?

3. You confirm that Cllr Denise Jeffery added the Business known as “Featherstone Rovers” to the steering group after you asked. Featherstone Rovers are 1 of many hundred businesses in the immediate area. Many are struggling to survive and also have and are entitled to a say in the plans for the future of the town. Is it not prejudice to ask 1 business and not all? Surely the opinion of the heart of Featherstone should be the main concern?

4. Featherstone rovers have a great facility that could be developed as they wish. The fact that the last 6 years work evolves around getting rid of property at the end of post office road to create an access is unacceptable and is a stab in the Featherstone Pride you recognise. The greatest Rovers fan business looks set to be destroyed either by Featherstone’s regeneration or no one listening to the Takeaway planning plague.

5. Can you please confirm when you notified Mr Prout of the date and time of the meeting? Every other member was either not informed or notified by hand delivered letter between 3.00pm and 5pm on the Friday before Monday’s meeting.

6. Can you please confirm when you notified the chair person Cllr Binnersly that you wished to insert a new representative at your request and also provide any corresponding documents?

7. After now making you aware of grave legitimate concerns surrounding the process that has been involved and those proposed to continue should not the MP call for an enquiry?

Your speedy response will be welcomed by me and the ombudsman so that a final resolve to the neglect and bizarre happenings can be ended allowing Featherstone to go forward.

Regards


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on May 06, 2009, 08:59:29 pm
 Another good one in the diary politics holding back the regeneration of Featherstone. You may have seen for the last 2 weeks planning notices for phase 3 of the precinct restorations tied to lamp posts.
To get to this stage your documents (even if lost or altered to slow you down) must be correct. Surprise, surprise planning call this week and wish to meet on site as part of the plan is incorrect. Also highways have considered the security bars to be used as some thing that needs to be discussed. What the frig has highways got to do with security bars on a roof on private land?
Time to step up the pace!


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on May 07, 2009, 08:18:44 pm
Met with planning today on site with an honest employee (yes I said that as he got of his arse to come look at the injustice that’s getting comical).
A single red lines position marking the area of a security bar to stop roof trespass was agreed and multiply photographed (that had been provided 6 times before).
The concern of highways was vaguely headed. In fact the security side of planning was raising its voice (didn’t know they had one?) there concern is that the roof rails to stop roof trespass will be a waste of time. My reply is why after 3 years planning how to address the problems disagree now? How else do you stop walking from one side to the other without a blockage in the path?


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on May 17, 2009, 10:28:24 pm
Judy Jones

Development Control Manager

Wakefield MDC

Planning Services

Newton Bar

Wakefield

WF1 2TX

jjones@wakefield,gov,uk

Telephone 01924 306621

16.05.09

Ref: voluntary group regenerating Featherstone town centre area called the Precinct

Dear Mrs Judy Jones

I refer to your email of 11th May in reply to my concerns regarding my application. It would appear from your reply that either you have not investigated fully or the one sided inconsistency are continuing.


1.” If I could provide you with some background into the validation the process which is not intended as an excuse but to try and explain what occurred in this particular instance. Your proposal was first registered on our system 13.02.09; your application was found to be invalid as it contained insufficient, inadequate supporting information, including the plans and mistakes on the application form.  As there were a number of problems with the proposal, the case officer Hubert Tos contacted you to discuss the various matters with you and to try and assist you.  I understand that Hubert spoke to you on a couple of occasions; however the outstanding matters remained unresolved when the officer went on holiday 28. 03.09.”
To correct your version, upon receipt of my application parts of it stared going missing. After numerous complaints I was then allocated a case officer called Hubert Tos. For the last year I have in fact contacted WMDC planning to discuss this project but until now have had no interest shown.
The sentence I have underlined proves my concerns are valid. Hubert did not speak to me on a couple of occasions. He in fact spoke to me everyday for almost 2 months. The reason the correspondence was so frequent was because the information to be altered when posted to Hubert regularly went missing. In the end I resorted to paying a driver to hand delivery every amended piece of paper on a one to twice weekly basis. When Hubert went on holiday on 28.03.09 he contacted me to inform me all was correct and that he had now validated the application. WMDC emails and telephone records can confirm my statement is correct and that yours is incorrect.


2. “Your proposal was left with other similar invalid cases so that other planning officers could validate your application if the requested information came in”.
My application was not left as you describe unless you are telling me that I have been told an untrurh? Please can you confirm who is incorrect as obviously someone is?


3.“Unfortunately it was during this period that your case was returned to you in error, I believe that this happened because invalid cases are usually only held for one month before they are returned to the applicant/ agent; and in this case it was not clear to the returning officer that you had been in dialogue with the case officer. This clearance of invalid cases is routinely done within the service so that the backlog of invalid applications and any accompany fees does not become too great, this procedure is correct and I can advise that Councils are entitled to return invalid applications to the sender.  I would however wish to clarify that no technical assessment or recommendation for approval is made on any application at this stage; it is purely an exercise of validation so I am unable to comment further about your question about why your application has been altered from recommend approval to invalid”.
If something is un-clear then surely as a council WMDC should provide as a duty of care procedures to promote good practice. You appear to mince the word validation compared to recommendation. Again to make it clear on Friday 03.09 my application was left by Hubert as “valid”, yet on Monday 06.09 someone made a huge effort to seek out just one application and return it as “invalid”. I would like to request that persons name for the record so that it may be passed to the local government Ombudsman. I am sure your reply will be that you cannot give name so I request the person’s first name and ask that you record this name for the purpose of investigation later.

4.“I understand that Hubert has remained proactive and arranged with you for the submission to be passed back to him, so that he could continue to try and progress the proposal.  Hubert has since registered that application, that the correct fee was provided without the need for further payment and he has also very recently been in touch with you to seek further amendments and clarification about certain proposal details so that your application can continue to be considered."  
Proactive is a good description of Hubert. In my opinion he has proved to be an asset to WMDC as he operates with 100% correctness whilst working in a political mine field. This project will be a huge boost to the local area that could not have gotten off the ground without a large free/ voluntary input. The only thing in the way has been and is WMDC planning.
I have received a call from planning who are now objecting to the reason why railings are needed. The application is now on hold until they arrive to “discuss options”, yet an appointment was only available 2 weeks on. The options were discussed 3 years ago and verified by all concerned.

5.“ As stated above I am sorry that your application was returned to you in error, I have asked officers to put clear instructions on invalid applications to try and minimise the likelihood of this type of problem from reoccurring”.
I hope you are right because for every day that WMDC play the political messing about game the project gets set back a week. There is a time scale to finish this plan. No thanks to WMDC planning is that you could right off this project due to administrative error. How ever you dress that up this project has so far not received the duty of care it should have.

Yours sincerely


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on May 24, 2009, 10:33:56 pm
A great read. And they thought fev would sit back and take another rip off ;D ;)

(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/10509ombusreply2.jpg)

(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/10509ombusreply3.jpg)

(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/10509ombusreply4.jpg)

(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/10509ombusreply5.jpg)


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on May 25, 2009, 05:21:14 pm
(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/110509tricketreply1.jpg)

(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/110509tricketreply2.jpg)


Jon Tricket MP
1A Highfield Road
Hemsworth
Pontefract
West Yorkshire
WF9 4DP

Date: 13/05/2009

Ref: your letter of 11th May 2009

Dear Mr. Tricket

Your first point “I constantly fail to provide my home address”, confirms that you have not read my letters as I have previously stated and that you choose to waste ink with an ignorant reply. I choose to use my works address for certain correspondence so as to speed up the turn around of information. As a rate payer on both my home and business I have the right to use what address I wish when addressing the likes of an MP whose wages and expenses I pay.
Your second point “not clear if whether my views are those of the Featherstone Chamber of Trade”, is a bizarre statement. As my letter was just that and addressed from me why would I be writing on behalf of the chamber of trade? Why would you say the chamber of trade and not one of the many other groups I help with in Featherstone?
Your third point “I note you also appear to be asking questions on behalf of the Ombudsman”. It would appear that your manipulation of words can be simply answered by replying that I did not use the word “behalf”. I am glad you have contacted the Ombudsman to report your version as one of my cases will benefit from your reply. However your actions are noted as providing misleading information to a government body.
Your Fourth point “I appear to pursuing a vendetta against Featherstone Rovers as I have provided misleading information”, I consider as liable and yet another labour party political termialogicalinexactitude created to slander me. Please can you prove your accusation?
Your fifth point relates to 1 section of an application. To explain;
Recently a leaflet was posted through my door explaining some detail of a planning application by Featherstone Rovers. On Sunday 26th April I viewed the WMDC website as advertised. On view were 5 parts to an application. One was described as “to sensitive to view”, 4 showed other areas and 1 showed the addition of 6 mobile transmitters in addition to 6 existing. The same letter of complaint was sent to WMDC planning regards only 1 item regards more transmitters that I disagree with. Unsurprisingly the day after my letter was sent to you the applications disappeared from the WMDC web site.
At no point have I objected to the other proposals from Featherstone rovers. Your comments appear to me painting a fairytale picture that you are then reading as a story better suited for “Jackanory”.
Your fifth point “I am un-aware who will be representing the Chamber of Trade on the Featherstone Renaissance Board but do feel it is important that WMDC are aware of the attitude of at least one businessman within Featherstone to Featherstone rovers and the campaign I have endeavored to orchestrate against the club and their community effort”.
I assume that you are replying to 2 separate matters within 1 letter. This is not acceptable and I request a separate response to my original letter so that it can be passed in relevance to the Ombudsman regards matters surrounding the master plan/ renaissance presently being investigated.
Yet again you appear to write a fairytale response that is without fact that slanders my name. I therefore require a response to:
1.   Why have you informed me that you have passed your opinion to Cllr Denis Jeffery when if you had any comment to make you should have passed to Cllr Peter Box under the “terms of reference” regards the Featherstone renaissance? Your comment is misleading?
2.   It would appear that only labour party supporters were made aware in advance of the renaissance meeting you mention. Please can you confirm what date you received confirmation of the date and time of the meeting and by whom it was sent?
3.   Why as an MP have you taken it upon yourself to assume I am a member of a group and provide a personal opinion regards it that could influence others?

Your sixth point “disappointing to see those efforts hampered”, suggests you have proof that I have hampered something? Please can you provide proof of your comment?

It is very clear from your letter that you have tried to fabricate an imaginary story that you have then used your political stance to publicise. For Featherstone this is very sad.
My opinion of Featherstone rovers for the record is greater than most. So much so that after attending numerous meetings I have drawn up a plan that would give the solution to the development of the Post Office road plans. As I am also a supporter of Featherstone rovers I consider you comments offensive.
If you can not reply in a helpful manor please could you confirm this in writing so that I can then move on to the next local MP for assistance and help?

regards


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on May 25, 2009, 05:24:20 pm
(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/190509tricketreply1.jpg)

(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/190509tricketreply2.jpg)


Jon Tricket MP
1A Highfield Road
Hemsworth
Pontefract
West Yorkshire
WF9 4DP

Date: 25/05/2009

Ref: your letter of 19th May 2009

Dear Mr. Tricket

I thank you for your reply and confirming that you have checked with planning and the chairman of Featherstone Rovers. However it would appear that yet again there is inaccuracies with the information you have been given.

I also contacted Cllr Binnersly with my concern. The reply she received from Featherstone rovers Andy Prowt was that the plans were on public view but were a mistake. Planning has yet to comment if they did remove the other applications. As Featherstone Rovers confirm that I was correct in what I viewed on the WMDC website it will be interesting to follow the paper trail at planning. Applications as you will understand do not normally just appear and then disappear. At WMDC so far this year I can prove that they do depending on who you are.

At the time of contacting you it would appear that my concerns were valid. Personally I wish Featherstone Rovers to grow and will be offering help if regeneration process are conducted correctly. My original concern is that the surrounding land does not become a field of mobile phone transmitters next to my home.

After reading your first page I actually thought you were replying correctly as an elected member should. After reading page 2 I see the palaver will continue.
 You comment;
 “just as I would never attempt to guide you on who you should be communicating with and the style you communicate in, I as the member of parliament for the area, will not be advised by you on where, how or whom I communicate”.
Leaves me wondering why you would create such an inept comment?
I will take advice from anyone if that information is beneficial to the wellbeing of Featherstone. Should I not be contacting you after you claim responsibility for overturning planning in a land mark case that in parliament you voted against and actually created? It would suggest you think I should contact someone else, why?
As you will not take advice for the good of Featherstone’s people but in fact take offence is that not a betrayal? If you had taken my advice you might have found the incorrectness before the local independent Cllr. I thought an M.P. was a normal person acting on behalf of the people and not someone who thinks they are above everyone else. Life is a learning curve that educates me everyday.

Your final comment;
“for the clarity on the word of “behalf” in relation to you and the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman has been left in no doubt what you have actually said as I sent him your e-mail which includes your direct comment,
“I and the Ombudsman would appreciate a reply to the following”.
After contacting the local government Ombudsman with your replies in relations to one of my investigations a check was carried out regarding the actions you have stated. No correspondence can be found from you to them. I would like therefore to request the documents you have sent as they are in relation to my investigation.

I would also ask for a third time for you to answer my original questions.

Regards


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on July 02, 2009, 09:56:08 pm
Dear Mr

1.   First of all, I apologise if there has been some misunderstanding between us about your village green application.  As you will see the e-mail I sent back to you, I cannot investigate a complaint unless it has been registered through our Access Centre in Coventry and then the Council must be given an opportunity to respond to it first.  Although I know about the village green application (from Mr Clayton, I believe) it is not something the Ombudsman has been asked to investigate. 
Your complaint

2.   The complaint I have been investigating is that Wakefield Council, having invited you to become a member of a steering group for Featherstone’s regeneration Master Plan,
   mismanaged the steering group; and
   disregarded its views; and
   that the Deputy Leader of the Council gave a promise to a public meeting, later confirmed in writing on the Council’s official writing paper, which a senior officer subsequently said she had no power to make.

The Council’s response

3.   The Council says the steering group was managed quite informally.  It acknowledges that, in some cases, not everyone who should have been invited to the meeting received adequate notice, proper minutes were not always taken and there was no proper procedure for ensuring that minutes were properly checked.   
4.   There is a difference between informality and casualness.  The purpose of these meetings was ultimately to access substantial public funding.  Of course meetings should have taken place in a relaxed, inter-active environment but those responsible for running the meetings had a duty to ensure they were conducted in a business-like way. 
5.   I have discussed my concerns with the Council’s Mr Wallhead who has agreed to improve procedures.  The Council may want to make small changes but I suggest that the following basic principles should be observed. 
a)   In the case of public open meetings, at least 14 days notice should be given, officers facilitating the meeting should introduce themselves at the outset (not just name, but office, if appropriate, and role) and a book should be circulated for every attendee to write his / her name.   Public open meetings should have an experienced chairman and an experienced note-taker should keep a record of the proceedings.  The original hand-written notes should be retained for 12 months in case there is a dispute. 
b)   Steering groups and committees should have clear terms of reference and a register of members. 
c)   All meetings (other than public open meetings) should have at least 14 days notice, including a copy of the minutes of the preceding meeting and the agenda.  The first agenda item at any meeting should be consideration of the minutes of the previous meeting followed by matters arising (other than those to be covered elsewhere in the agenda.  This ensures that matters raised do not drift into oblivion.)  Every meeting should be minuted by an experienced note-taker, the typed draft of whose notes should be checked by the Chairman within 48 hours, before being finalised for circulation.    Original notes of the meeting should be retained until the minutes have been approved at the following meeting.
6.   Did the Council disregard the view of the steering group?  The evidence does not enable me to say it did not.  However, the Council has remedied the situation.  In its report to Cabinet on 24 March this year, in its letter to me and in Mr Wallhead’s letter to you, the Council has stated unequivocally that reference to the Civic Plaza has been deleted from the Masterplan. 
7.   Did Members exceed their powers?  I believe there has been a misunderstanding here.   On 4 October 2007 Councillor Denise Jeffery, Deputy Leader of the Council, wrote to her colleague, Councillor Kay Binnersley saying that “following the meeting at Featherstone to discuss the Masterplan, (she had taken) the paper to Cabinet… (asking for all reference to) the Civic Plaza (Chesneys) to be taken out and (for there to be) no redevelopment at Post Office Road, (involving homes and businesses) at the present time.”  She said Cabinet agreed to this.   
8.   Subsequently Councillor Box, Leader of the Council, suggested that Councillor Jeffery had no authority to do this. 
9.   The paper submitted to the Cabinet had been prepared by the consultants, DTZ.  It was their property and Councillor Box had a fair point when he said Councillor Jeffery had no authority to meddle with it.  As a Councillor, however, she had every right (arguably a duty) to tell Cabinet that the steering group strongly opposed DTZ’s proposals for the Civic Plaza and to ask Cabinet not to approve redevelopment of Post Office Road. 
10.   Once again, however, the documents presented to Cabinet and the documents posted on the Council’s website lacked clarity and, if records are unclear, disputes arise and people lose confidence in the Council.   All this, however, has now been remedied by the Council’s recent actions and the assurances it has given. 
Provisional View
11.   The Council has remedied your concern about the Civic Plaza and it has agreed that, in future, meetings will be conducted in a more business-like way.  This should ensure you go forward on a better footing and with more confidence that views, at local level, will be taken into account although, inevitably, not everyone will be happy with the outcome, whatever it is! 
12.   We seem to have achieved a satisfactory local settlement of your complaint and I would recommend its acceptance.  However, before reaching any final decision, I would welcome your comments.  If there is anything else you would like me to take into consideration, please would you let me know within the next two weeks?   Otherwise, as soon as you confirm this settlement is acceptable to you, I shall close the complaint and notify the Council accordingly.   
Yours sincerely
Investigator


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on August 10, 2009, 08:52:41 pm
Andrew Wallhead
Regeneration Culture & sport
Town Hall
Wood Street
Wakefield
West Yorkshire
WF1 2HQ

10.08.2009

Dear Mr Wallhead

Although I believe I have not obtained all the facts I require before meeting with you circumstances dictate that I now must. I am free all day any Thursday that you can possible travel to Featherstone. I would have communicated earlier (approximately a year) but I have for some reason not been invited to the Featherstone Renaissance part 2 meetings held since last August 2008. My only knowledge of them has been after making a request for the meetings minutes that finally arrived on 27.07.2009.
On a second point can you confirm that WMDC have started repairs on the precinct today? Whilst I was on site from 9am to 4.45pm I noticed WMDC workmen. As I have been forced to copy with HSE and WMDC health and safety please can you comment why your employees did not do the same?
Why have hundreds of pounds worth of ornate floor plates been uplifted and replaced with £3.50 worth of gravel that as I write is being used as missiles by the kids we all know are systematically vandalising the precinct area?
The best bit was watching the painters. Yes 2 men that managed in half a day to paint 4 out of six benches. Before the excuse of preparation is used the painters did not even wipe down the metal frames or rub down. They just approached and blathered. Even funnier still was when they then stuck wet paint signs on the floor and left after a nothing shift. The kids that are always there quickly removed the signs and stood back chuckling, waiting for some poor soul to sit down. This is a police grade A zoned area with a camera. Unless its screwed down or fenced off it will be trashed.
Can I send any bills for damage to my works to you from stones thrown?

Hope to talk to you soon


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on August 11, 2009, 10:55:16 pm
Dear  ;)

Many thanks for your recent Email regarding various issues.

Regarding your request for a meeting in Featherstone this Thursday. Unfortunately, I already have other appointments on Thursday. However, I would be happy to meet with you at a mutually convenient date. Perhaps you could contact my PA, Sara Hall who would be more than happy to arrange this with you. Sara can be contacted on 01924 306951.

I am pleased that you have now received the minutes from the Steering Group. You will note from those minutes that the group comprises of a small number of strategic organisations with senior level representation. If you feel that there are gaps in the representation and/or that you would like to be part of that group, I would ask you to write directly to either myself or Councillor Kay Binnersley who chairs the group. The request can then be discussed at the next available steering group meeting. We have followed this approach with other requests. I can advise you that the steering group are proposing to hold an open forum meeting at some time in the autumn. This will be open to all local organisations and members of the public.

The works on the precinct are designed to tie in with the shop front improvements which are being led by the Chamber of trade. Together we hope that these works will significantly improve the environment of the precinct. Your comments regarding the removal of "ornate floor plates" are noted, but I will have to speak to colleagues before I am able to respond more fully. I can however confirm that all works have to comply with relevant health & safety legislation. If you have concerns regarding the conduct of the contractors, please contact the Project Manager, Andrew Woodhead (01924 304598). I have sent a copy of your Email to Andrew so that he can investigate the standard of the works.

Finally, I am sorry to hear of the anti-social behaviour resulting in damage to your works. We will do what we can minimise opportunities for this kind of activity, but ultimately  criminal activity is a matter for the police. Similar issues have been raised at the Steering Group in the past and I will bring this latest activity to the attention of the wider group at our next meeting.

Kind regards,


Andy Wallhead
Corporate Director Regeneration, Culture and Sport
Wakefield MDC


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on August 11, 2009, 10:56:44 pm
Dear Mr Wallhead,

I did not mean this Thursday, but any Thursday as that is the only day I am
not working with my staff at my expense to regenerate the town centre. I
will call your PA and leave it with her as you could not pick up the phone
yourself.

the minutes you refer to are incomplete as I am sure you are aware if you
have read them. I will provide my evaluation shortly. what I and anyone else
reading the minutes can confirm is that only WMDC employees are represented
and one business called Featherstone Rovers. all else appear to have been
excluded. I have all ready passed written comment that to date has received
no reply dated from December 2008. a copy is filed with the Ombudsman
office. as for "gaps" I see the Grand Canyon. as the person most informed
and up to date regards all the issues you discuss why would I be required to
"request" sharing my knowledge? my information is available to almost anyone who
asks.
it would appear that your approach is as the Ombudsman describes "unclear".
There is no consolidation of committee members within your group that can
determine a true picture of your aims and goals. It would appear that my
only input will arrive from  being allowed to wash your dirty washing in
public sometime soon. at least the public will witness a spicy meeting with
the truth provided.

"tie in with shop front improvements". as I am performing the so called
improvements at a cost of nothing from myself may I ask when someone at WMDC
will contact me with a view to helping? I know nothing of the poor quality
contractors that arrived on Monday other than that they are crap and I
believe are charging £6k for the pleasure. please tell them to stop before
they waste any more of my council tax money.

your final comment is obviously without a clue as to the situation. the
precinct is WMDC owned. it is monitored by a WMDC camera system. the fact
that WMDC has failed in its duty of care by using this equipment on its land
for the sake of public safety is WMDCs responsibility. As for the police
they have no one to police the area even though the area is only 1 of 2
zoned hot spots.
please do not waste your time reporting to your committee these problems as
I have all ready done so to many of them for the last 2 years. the majority
of them simply require to be sacked. perhaps Featherstone then can actually
move forward.

I will not hold my breath for action in stead of words.
regards


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on August 11, 2009, 10:58:04 pm
Mr  ;)

Further to my earlier Email. I have been advised that tree grills you referred too in your earlier Email had to be removed because of the growth of the trees (either that or remove the trees). The tree pits have been filled with gravel as a temporary measure, but a permanent solution will be put in place in due course.

I hope that this answers your query.

Regards,

Andy Wallhead
Corporate Director Regeneration, Culture and Sport
Wakefield MDC


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on August 11, 2009, 10:59:30 pm
Dear Mr Wallhead

whilst the surrounding shops are pelted with YOUR STONES, who should I
advise they send the bill of repairs to?

regards


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on July 04, 2010, 09:29:59 pm
(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/DSC00635.jpg)


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on June 01, 2011, 09:15:17 pm
(http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg99/yetion1/Picture009-5.jpg)


Title: Re: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN
Post by: yetion1 on March 05, 2012, 08:51:35 pm
There seems to be a lack of advertising for the next open public display event this week. ::)

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EVENT
Featherstone - A progress update on the regeneration priorities
A drop in engagement event regarding the regeneration of Featherstone will be held at:

Venue: Chesneys Centre, Featherstone
Date: Thursday 8 March 2012
Time: 4.15pm to 7pm


http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=14123&query=featherstone%20regeneration&SCOPE=www.wakefield.gov.uk&hiword=FEATHERSTONES%20REGENERATE%20REGENERATING%20REGENERATIVE%20featherstone%20regeneration%20